Posted by Lizak on 3/9/2013 7:51:00 PM (view original):Look at it this way - the previous coach did have a HUGE advantage over any other coach because he was guaranteed the job if he just renewed. There's no real life counterpart to this so no sense trying to go down that road.

So given that, does anyone feel it is worth development time to change this part of the game? That's what every well run business must consider. Not, would this make things better, but is this an important thing to put development dollars into at any point in the future.

this is a fair point, and i agree, ultimately the business would have to decide if its worth spending time making a change. i think its worth noting, they already showed they felt it was worth doing something about this - as not long ago, they made a change to let coaches get the job back if they applied before anyone else. in this case, aramano went back quickly, but someone had applied - but will still far away from getting the job - so he lost. but the business felt it was worth putting time in to make the situation better once already, so its not unreasonable to think they might again, in the future.

however, ill take exception to one thing. not even exception really, more like, a comment. when you ask, "does anyone feel its worth development time to change", suggesting thats the real question, rather than "would this make things better" - i would argue that you must ask if it makes things better first, and then, is it worth the time to fix, second. besides, i think pretty much everyone on these boards takes the approach, when discussing what would be best, that there is almost 0 chance it will get made better, at least in the foreseeable future. but that doesnt mean its not worth talking about anything that could be done to make the game better, at least not to me.

Posted by colonels19 on 3/9/2013 6:30:00 PM (view original):You don't deserve any special consideration because you coached the team last...that's dumb...that gives carte blanche to anyone that's ever had seller's remorse. I believe it should be a fair battle between all applicants, best resume wins. We have a difference of opinion and you want to talk like the ******* game's broken.

The situation is over, RENEW YOUR TEAM NEXT TIME...

sounds like the exact same thing could be said to you and the other coach who wanted back in d1. if you stayed, you could have kept playing. but you guys left, and wanted back in, so why the hell should you get special consideration?? (and btw, when you say your logic is simple on the difference in situation - one guy paid, and the other didnt - that is simple, because its wrong. both guys stopped paying, and both lost their jobs. both paid, and then wanted a job back at the same level. except one made a dumb, silly, unintentional mistake - and was qualified to get the job back, more than qualified really, he did a great job and was an asset to the conference. on the other hand, both of you guys sucked extensively, in one case, ghost shipped the team, screwing any potential conference mates, and then left - unqualified to return. so again, i cant see the reasoning behind why you or that other coach would get leniency, and aramano would not. it just seems to be simply, in your situation, you want what you want, but screw anyone else. now THAT logic is simple, and thats a reason i can believe - although, i cannot respect it)

Apples to oranges dude. I wanted to coach a different team and multiple seasons later. I was bored with HD/South Carolina State when I quit that situation, I came back a few different times, went to 2 straight NTs at D2, wasn't eligible to move up to D1, but magically 5 seasons later or so, I was eligible for D1 and took the Jacksonville job for one season...I couldn't switch to any other team, I was damned to that ship, BOTH TIMES.

ARomano forgot to renew his team, is apparently qualified for a glut of other jobs after 16 seasons at Miami, with multiple NT appearances, and you guys are wanting some kind of special privilege for him to get his team back because he ****** up.

How are these situations even remotely similar? ARomano has D1 options, I didn't. I chose not to renew my teams both times, ARomano "forgot" to renew his team. ARomano wanted to stay at the school he was at, I didn't want to stay at the D1 schools I was at. I was/am "screwed" by WIS, and ARomano screwed himself and wants to tactically loophole himself out of the situation.

Just like every time when this happens and X coach ******* and moans about not having ample time/resources/etc to renew his team...blah blah blah...WIS get my team back etc etc (FWIW, I think ARomano is handling this better than some other guys I've seen with the same predicament)...it's your own fault, you lost your team because you fell asleep at the wheel...yes it sucks and it's a bitter pill to swallow, but I bet you won't EVER make the same mistake again. Again in the end, the user is responsible for their team, and if they fail to renew their team before the renewal deadline...they're going to LOSE it, what's so hard to understand...man up and be accountable. Either take another D1/D2/D3 team, or quit/get a refund...you want special privileges, send a ticket...again the lesson is RENEW YOUR TEAM ON TIME.

And before you try to go off about my D1 situation again, remember that I'm still squelched from D1 in Tark...you calling me out for being selfish, jealous, envious...HA!

I love the fact that he forgot to/didn't renew his team is the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address here, and it's the #1 reason we're here talking about this...just absolutely unbelievable...

Not to get a massively long quoting going - want to address these 2 paragraphs you (colonels19) said:

How are these situations even remotely similar? ARomano has D1 options, I didn't. I chose not to renew my teams both times, ARomano "forgot" to renew his team. ARomano wanted to stay at the school he was at, I didn't want to stay at the D1 schools I was at. I was/am "screwed" by WIS, and ARomano screwed himself and wants to tactically loophole himself out of the situation.

And before you try to go off about my D1 situation again, remember that I'm still squelched from D1 in Tark...you calling me out for being selfish, jealous, envious...HA!

before i try to go off about your d1 situation? i didnt go off about it, and if you remember, i actually took the side that you should get another shot, in that thread. i simply compared to it. and yes, you are still squelched from d1 in tark - thats EXACTLY why you made the complaint. so obviously you could make that complaint for selfish reasons. if you had a d1 tark job - you wouldnt need to complain. so i think you have it backwards there, no?

more importantly, i think its pretty clear where the disagreement lies, by this statement you made:"I was/am "screwed" by WIS, and ARomano screwed himself and wants to tactically loophole himself out of the situation."
you were screwed by WIS? and the other coach who ghost shipped his team and couldnt return to d1? you guys call that getting screwed, when its your own performance over a period of months that excludes you? that seems *EXTREMELY* far fetched, especially if you are going to refer to aramano as screwing himself. he made a simple mistake in a larger context where he was highly successful. you guys made a conscious effort and failed to succeed, that is the larger context. so seriously, to claim you got screwed, while aramano screwed himself, is simply ridiculous. you make my point exactly - and to be clear what that point is, ill quote myself:"it just seems to be simply, in your situation, you want what you want, but screw anyone else. now THAT logic is simple, and thats a reason i can believe - although, i cannot respect it"

although, i will say that i dont think its fair to take that statement i made (that is the exact statement), and to refer to that as "you calling me out for being selfish, jealous, envious" - selfish, thats not what i said, self-centered maybe more accurate, but i guess you could go with selfish! jealous, envious - i dont think i implied that in the slightest.

Posted by colonels19 on 3/9/2013 11:25:00 PM (view original):I love the fact that he forgot to/didn't renew his team is the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address here, and it's the #1 reason we're here talking about this...just absolutely unbelievable...

i dont know about you, but the rest of us ARE addressing that he didnt renew his team. more accurately, how that situation should/could be handled. the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address?? i dont see where you are coming from on that, not at all, to be totally honest.

Posted by colonels19 on 3/9/2013 11:25:00 PM (view original):I love the fact that he forgot to/didn't renew his team is the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address here, and it's the #1 reason we're here talking about this...just absolutely unbelievable...

i dont know about you, but the rest of us ARE addressing that he didnt renew his team. more accurately, how that situation should/could be handled. the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address?? i dont see where you are coming from on that, not at all, to be totally honest.

Why does there need to be a fail safe for a process that's already over a month long and is constantly reminding the user to renew? He forgot to renew, he lost his team, case closed, do it right next time.

Posted by coach_billyg on 3/10/2013 12:01:00 AM (view original):Not to get a massively long quoting going - want to address these 2 paragraphs you (colonels19) said:

How are these situations even remotely similar? ARomano has D1 options, I didn't. I chose not to renew my teams both times, ARomano "forgot" to renew his team. ARomano wanted to stay at the school he was at, I didn't want to stay at the D1 schools I was at. I was/am "screwed" by WIS, and ARomano screwed himself and wants to tactically loophole himself out of the situation.

And before you try to go off about my D1 situation again, remember that I'm still squelched from D1 in Tark...you calling me out for being selfish, jealous, envious...HA!

before i try to go off about your d1 situation? i didnt go off about it, and if you remember, i actually took the side that you should get another shot, in that thread. i simply compared to it. and yes, you are still squelched from d1 in tark - thats EXACTLY why you made the complaint. so obviously you could make that complaint for selfish reasons. if you had a d1 tark job - you wouldnt need to complain. so i think you have it backwards there, no?

more importantly, i think its pretty clear where the disagreement lies, by this statement you made:"I was/am "screwed" by WIS, and ARomano screwed himself and wants to tactically loophole himself out of the situation."
you were screwed by WIS? and the other coach who ghost shipped his team and couldnt return to d1? you guys call that getting screwed, when its your own performance over a period of months that excludes you? that seems *EXTREMELY* far fetched, especially if you are going to refer to aramano as screwing himself. he made a simple mistake in a larger context where he was highly successful. you guys made a conscious effort and failed to succeed, that is the larger context. so seriously, to claim you got screwed, while aramano screwed himself, is simply ridiculous. you make my point exactly - and to be clear what that point is, ill quote myself:"it just seems to be simply, in your situation, you want what you want, but screw anyone else. now THAT logic is simple, and thats a reason i can believe - although, i cannot respect it"

although, i will say that i dont think its fair to take that statement i made (that is the exact statement), and to refer to that as "you calling me out for being selfish, jealous, envious" - selfish, thats not what i said, self-centered maybe more accurate, but i guess you could go with selfish! jealous, envious - i dont think i implied that in the slightest.

I asked if people thought I deserved to coach D1 in Tark....the answer was a pretty solid NO, I just wanted to get some opinions and perspectives on my "ordeal". I didn't petition WIS to let me coach D1, nor did I even send them a ticket...I'm not going to waste their time on conjecture. I'm not so sure it was a "complaint" as much as it was me pointing out WIS' inconsistencies as far as D1 jobs go, in a circumstance like mine. I think the ARomano situation is much more cut and dry.

I use the "screwing" term very lightly here, that's why I put it in quotes to begin with, but yes I'm currently prevented from coaching in Tark D1 because WIS doesn't have a clear set of rules and regulations of what it takes to get to D1 and how to stay there...there standards are inconsistent at best, and I made that point, especially given my situation. I don't really want to speak for the ghost ship guy, I think he should be able to coach D1 too, but that's by my standard/personal belief that once you get to D1, you should always qualify for at least 1 D1 job, you shouldn't have to re-qualify for something you've already attained.

I guess my point is that ARomano had full control of his situation, whereas I didn't...and again they're two COMPLETELY different scenarios, with differing circumstances as we've both addressed. Again I think a fail safe for a renewal process that tells you every day for over a month to renew your team, is completely unnecessary and a knee-jerk reaction to a situation involving a "spurned" coach...I'm not on board, I think it's ludicrous and that you/he/they would be wasting WIS' time over nonsense.

If I lost Mount Olive (a team I've coached for the last 28 seasons) tomorrow because I forgot to renew, I'd be pretty upset, but I wouldn't say anything, for I would/will have known that that result came as a result of my lack of action, for whatever reason...the reason is irrelevant, no matter how much you want to use words like "dumb", "silly", "unintentional", and "mistake". It sucks, but again the solution here...personal accountability, and paying attention. People never talk about things like this until something like this happens, and I think that in itself says something about the argument to begin with...again knee-jerk/sour grapes/poor me (again ARomano has handled this situation nobly and better than anyone I've seen previously).

although the directness of his argument leaves me feeling kind of dirty, I agree with colonels in general. I'm not sure if it was ever addressed here, but the possible exception I would say is if the resumes are clearly extremely similar. The issue this time isn't just that he forgot to renew, its that he thinks his resume should have landed him the job, maybe with some consideration for having been the coach already. That's like 2 issues really -

1. should coaches who forget to renew have some artificial advantage to get their job back.

2. is the hiring process fubar when comparing coaches resumes

I think 2 is probably the case and could use some work. I don't think 1 should be true. There are lots of reminders telling you to renew. Maybe you are waiting for postseason credits to roll in from other worlds before buying a new package - I've done that a bunch of times, and cut it close on occasion. But that's on the user. If they don't renew and someone else applies (remember if no one has applied yet they automatically get it back as if they never left, so there is an advantage already) and is more qualified, the job should go to the better resume. Like I mentioned upthread, if they start firing coaches that underperform (not the case here, just a general point) and made it easier for the high prestige jobs to become available to others waiting for their shot I might reconsider my stance, but as it is, this is another (relatively rare) opportunity for someone else to get their shot.

Posted by colonels19 on 3/9/2013 11:25:00 PM (view original):I love the fact that he forgot to/didn't renew his team is the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address here, and it's the #1 reason we're here talking about this...just absolutely unbelievable...

i dont know about you, but the rest of us ARE addressing that he didnt renew his team. more accurately, how that situation should/could be handled. the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address?? i dont see where you are coming from on that, not at all, to be totally honest.

Why does there need to be a fail safe for a process that's already over a month long and is constantly reminding the user to renew? He forgot to renew, he lost his team, case closed, do it right next time.

there doesnt need to be a fail safe process, and i think its a very reasonable opinion that the status quo is good enough, as ive mentioned a couple times :)

but simply saying "case closed" doesnt mean the case is closed, as much as you'd like it to be. just because its a reasonable opinion that the status quo is good enough, doesnt mean its not reasonable to look for or talk about ways to make things better.

i would actually argue its impossible to make a fail safe system, and i dont think anyone else is looking for a fail safe system, either. but that doesnt mean things cant be made better. you always seem to want to talk in these absolutes. "you made a mistake, its your fault, thus, nobody should do anything to help you". theres a middle ground between bailing people out of every possible situation, and doing nothing to help people in any situation in which they make a mistake. you talk like its totally unreasonable to consider making changes to make it less likely coaches lose their programs, why? you also talk like other people are saying, we need to fix this, its totally broken, aramano got screwed - but i dont think anyone is saying that, and dont know why you act like people are.

Posted by dacj501 on 3/10/2013 12:42:00 AM (view original):although the directness of his argument leaves me feeling kind of dirty, I agree with colonels in general. I'm not sure if it was ever addressed here, but the possible exception I would say is if the resumes are clearly extremely similar. The issue this time isn't just that he forgot to renew, its that he thinks his resume should have landed him the job, maybe with some consideration for having been the coach already. That's like 2 issues really -

1. should coaches who forget to renew have some artificial advantage to get their job back.

2. is the hiring process fubar when comparing coaches resumes

I think 2 is probably the case and could use some work. I don't think 1 should be true. There are lots of reminders telling you to renew. Maybe you are waiting for postseason credits to roll in from other worlds before buying a new package - I've done that a bunch of times, and cut it close on occasion. But that's on the user. If they don't renew and someone else applies (remember if no one has applied yet they automatically get it back as if they never left, so there is an advantage already) and is more qualified, the job should go to the better resume. Like I mentioned upthread, if they start firing coaches that underperform (not the case here, just a general point) and made it easier for the high prestige jobs to become available to others waiting for their shot I might reconsider my stance, but as it is, this is another (relatively rare) opportunity for someone else to get their shot.

i think this is a very reasonable stance.

you mention that if someone else is more qualified and applies, the job should go to the better resume. i think thats a valid point, and i definitely agree to some extent.

fundamentally, if you are on board with a coach getting the job before anyone else applies, then i think we have a fairly similar viewpoint, with a slightly different final result. the reason i support a coach getting his job back before anyone else renews, well, its two reasons:

1) it makes sense to try to keep a coach who is at a school and wants to stay there, at that school
2) if nobody else has renewed, nobody can be unfairly impacted

in assessing any proposed change to the job system, in the arena of dealing with people who forget to renew, i think its the same two factors that play in. now, it might not be black and white - i think black and white situations are easiest. if the original coach can get the job back, without anyone else being impacted, then its a no brainer (well, you might not make the change because the dev team doesnt have time, but thats not what im talking about here - just what is ideal).

however, it may not always be black and white. its a fundamental opinion, where i dont think there is any right or wrong - is there any case where its worth risking some small chance that a coach is slightly negatively impacted, to help the original coach? you could also factor in, how much does that coach deserve to keep his job, based on how long he was there (or something), if you wanted - but that still really falls into factor #1. i think its perfectly reasonable to say, as you seem to be - the original coach got plenty of warnings, and deserves nothing, so we should only help him if nobody else is negatively impacted. however, others might think, man, this really sucks for the original coach, so if there is an acceptably small impact on another coach, its worth it.

dac, what do you think of my framing of this issue? is that a fair way to frame things? if so, under that framing, where do you stand?

i actually am totally with you on your opinion on #1 (#1 in your post) - i am against giving coaches who forget to renew, some artificial advantage in the comparison of resumes, at decision time. my opinion on the subject, in the framing i described, is that the original coach basically got enough warnings and should not be helped if that help has a good chance of significantly hurting another coach. however, if there is a very minor impact, or a very small chance of material negative impact, im for helping the original coach.

anyway, in the issue of waiting until resumes would get compared, and giving the original coach an advantage - i think the potential to negatively impact another coach is too great. what if there were only 2 similar job openings, and the applicant has a strong resume, and could win either job. suspecting this, that coach could very reasonably only apply to 1 of the 2. if the artificial advantage comes into play, and the applicant loses, the other job likely filled at the same time, and thus, the artificial advantage cost him a quality job. i think that is too significant of a negative, that is too likely to occur.

now, one could say even the recent change could cost someone a job - if aramano had applied first, hed have gotten it, and that change thus would prevent kimball from getting aramano's old job (miami FL), as was ultimately the case. but i think most of us are in agreement, the baseline is, what is the situation for the other coach (kimball in this case) if the original coach (aramano) had renewed on time? in that case, he couldnt have gotten the job, he would have gotten the 2nd good job (if the situation in the above example applied), and that is the same outcome that would happen if aramano forgot to renew, but applied first and was re-instated.

anyway, in the current situation, i believe that coaches often are checking in as soon as they can on the day jobs open up - a lot happens. you can see if you lost a player early, you can see if your conference mate won the NT (if applicable), and you can see what jobs may have opened up. i actually forgot to renew south carolina once, but because i checked quickly, and because it wasnt the kind of job people would jump at, i was able to grab it back, no harm done. my thinking is this - if the original coach and applicant are both logging on in this period, and they both are going to apply within say 5 minutes of the job opening up, is it really a material difference if the original coach applies first or second? also, should the attractiveness of the job play such a high role in his odds that someone else applies right away? i can see either answer here - but my opinion is that no, which coach applies first if they both apply in the first 5 minutes, is not a material difference. there is a VERY small chance the applicant would not check back for the remainder of the day, especially if he knows the original coach might have reclaimed the job, and as long as the applicant is able to check back in and get another job app in, i see no harm done - and would support the original coach getting the job back (immediately upon application).

now, i dont really think 5 minutes buys you much, and many people may say, i dont think the original coach should get that privilege (what would you say, dac?). but if you think that there is no negative to other coaches (as compared to the baseline situation - where the original coach renewed on time), and think that 5 minute window after jobs open up would be fine, then the question becomes, where do you draw the line? some coaches dont stay up late, some are up early instead. but still, you could catch most late night coaches if you give the original coach 1 hour after jobs open up. is that a sufficiently small negative? i think so. what about 9am, or noon? it seems one of those would likely catch the morning coaches, but theres definitely a greater chance the other coach cant check back in. i would think that if coaches new they might lose the job to the original coach, it would be safe to assume they would make sure to check back - you only have to check back if you applied right away, anyway, and those coaches who are checking stuff ASAP are usually pretty attentive. so i could get behind giving the original coach until 9am, or noon, to reclaim their job. i think if you get much later, you really start to box the applicant in, not giving him enough time to apply elsewhere before jobs start filling - and maybe noon is already too late.

anyway, i know this rambled on forever, but to me its an interesting philosophical question, how do you deal with the 2 factors (the advantage of letting an original coach get his job back, vs the negative impact on other coaches), and if you dont take a black and white stance (never allow another coach to be negatively impacted), how do you balance those 2 factors? what the tipping point? those sort of questions always interest me. so anyway, im curious if you (or anyone else) would be on board with a shades-of-grey approach, where you'd be fine with a mechanism that helps the original coach but carries some small negative? and if so, how much negative is ok? also, to people behind the coach advantage suggestion, how do you feel about the potential negative impact on applicant coaches?

Hey Jeff, weird question here. If you bother to take the time to use proper punctuation, why don't you ever capitalize anything? Just seems strange to me I guess.

Update on the situation (I don't think I've seen it posted yet), Kimball applied and got ARomano's Miami job after AR forgot to renew. That much we already knew. Well, lo and behold, guess who the new coach at Oklahoma State (Kimball's old job) is? Yep, you guessed it, ARomano. Switched jobs. Both of them went from high prestige job to high prestige job, so in the long run, this particular scenario is probably a wash to those of us on the outside. But to AR, I bet he "feels" like he got demoted.

I was in the ACC with him for many seasons (he at Miami, Duke for me) and I know he really liked that job, so to lose it because of forgetfulness on his part is probably really eating at him. But the OK St. job he got isn't exactly a rebuilding project either, Kimball kept that team in title contention every season. There's just something a little different about being at a school like that for many seasons and even winning a title there that just makes it seem a little more special. Oh well, I hope both of them end up being happy where they're at and I am so hoping that they'll meet up in the Final Four this season. Just wouldn't seem right if they didn't.

Posted by colonels19 on 3/9/2013 11:25:00 PM (view original):I love the fact that he forgot to/didn't renew his team is the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address here, and it's the #1 reason we're here talking about this...just absolutely unbelievable...

i dont know about you, but the rest of us ARE addressing that he didnt renew his team. more accurately, how that situation should/could be handled. the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address?? i dont see where you are coming from on that, not at all, to be totally honest.

Why does there need to be a fail safe for a process that's already over a month long and is constantly reminding the user to renew? He forgot to renew, he lost his team, case closed, do it right next time.

I have a team in all 10 Worlds and quickly go through each one daily (or twice in those 3) and don't even notice the reminders. In any event, I know, obviously, it's my fault and accept it. I still think I should have gotten the team back based on resumes. After a ticket they said he had 22 successful seasons at Ok State. I had 17 at Miami, a National Championship, not one a losing season and only 1 in which I was in the PIT - all others in the NT, and another 19 at Colorado and Long Island (including a NCOY at Colorado). Kimball had 2 losing seasons at Ok St, 5 seasons out of the NT and 2 completely out of the post-season, and in my opinion most importantly, No National Championship. How is that better? Again, in any event, I look forward to winning a Title at OK State.

dac, what do you think of my framing of this issue? is that a fair way to frame things? if so, under that framing, where do you stand?

I think you've framed it correctly. I'm of the mind that if no one else has applied (ie there is no negative to any other coach, even if he only applied 5 minutes faster) go ahead and give the original coach the job back. I'm not totally unsympathetic and I do think it sucks for the coach losing his job, but not to the point where I absolve them of the ultimate responsibility. I am against any shades of grey approach for a couple of reasons; primarily, in this case, my unwillingness to believe in WiS to get it right. Better to be cut and dried. Also I do feel that there are too few opportunities to move into the top level jobs (in this particular case it was a transfer from one top job to another, so not relevant in the details, but in the abstract). IF firings became more common when deserved I may change my stance (I'd need to review it then) but as it stands I feel there are enough warnings and ways to transfer seasons, etc. I don't mean that to sound heartless, and I realize it is a game, but it seems the fairest way to handle a delicate situation to me.

Posted by colonels19 on 3/9/2013 11:25:00 PM (view original):I love the fact that he forgot to/didn't renew his team is the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address here, and it's the #1 reason we're here talking about this...just absolutely unbelievable...

i dont know about you, but the rest of us ARE addressing that he didnt renew his team. more accurately, how that situation should/could be handled. the last thing anyone wants to talk about/address?? i dont see where you are coming from on that, not at all, to be totally honest.

Why does there need to be a fail safe for a process that's already over a month long and is constantly reminding the user to renew? He forgot to renew, he lost his team, case closed, do it right next time.

I have a team in all 10 Worlds and quickly go through each one daily (or twice in those 3) and don't even notice the reminders. In any event, I know, obviously, it's my fault and accept it. I still think I should have gotten the team back based on resumes. After a ticket they said he had 22 successful seasons at Ok State. I had 17 at Miami, a National Championship, not one a losing season and only 1 in which I was in the PIT - all others in the NT, and another 19 at Colorado and Long Island (including a NCOY at Colorado). Kimball had 2 losing seasons at Ok St, 5 seasons out of the NT and 2 completely out of the post-season, and in my opinion most importantly, No National Championship. How is that better? Again, in any event, I look forward to winning a Title at OK State.

I haven't looked at the resumes closely (maybe that's the next logical step of the discussion?) but I did check and see that your championship was 14 seasons ago. That is far enough back that I am ok with it not getting very much weight (I don't think it gets any the way things stand now - maybe that's not fair), but it was a long time back.

On top of the in game reminders they also send an email warning to the account on record - I know that for sure because I am dropping a team and I just got the reminder about it. Is your email on record? I recommend fixing that if not - I actually did get saved by the email reminder once for my UCF team in the Rupp CUSA superconference... not a knock, just friendly advice.

Feel bad you lost your team, especially if it was a destination school, but I wish you good luck in Stillwater.